Drahill writes: I’m a third-year law student from a rockin’ redneck town in Montana (pop. 510). I currently live in Pennsylvania, where I attend law school and live with an awesome Republican dude and a politically unaffiliated cat. I’m a Caucasian-Native American, rural, vegetarian baker with a surprisingly large amount of free time and penchant for shooting guns, knitting and cruising the internet.

Several years ago, I plead no contest to simple assault. At the time, I was on medication for bipolar disorder, but the medication was not effective. I was in the middle of a manic episode when I met up with some friends and some acquaintances of theirs. At some point through the night, one of the girls present (who I did not know well) said something to me I took as insulting. Words were exchanged, a heated argument happened, threats were exchanged. Then, I hit her. She did not swing at me, there was no provocation. I just hit her. And she fell on the floor, and I kept hitting her, repeatedly. I remember very little of it, which I attribute to my overly hyper, manic, angry state at the time. I remember somebody calling the cops and being taken away. The cops who escorted me out told me that an ambulance had to be used to take the girl out, and she had some noticeable and substantial injuries. I don’t recall everything from this time. I remember being in a holding cell, then transferred and arraigned on a simple assault charge.

Long story short, because of my mental illness and because I was taking my meds at the time, it was agreed that if I wanted to plead no contest, I would not go to a traditional prison for a while, but would serve an abbreviated sentence at a secure mental health facility to get me psychiatric help. So that was what I did, because everybody involved agreed it to be best. I will not bore you with the details of a psychiatric hospital, but I will say that it was the best thing for me and the people I encountered there were wonderful. But that’s not what this post is really about…

It’s about when my sixty days were up, and I re-emerged from the hospital. Free as a bird again. And what one is really supposed to do after having been on “the inside.” Although I met a ton of people who were supportive and wonderful and kind towards me, I also became acutely aware that to some, having a criminal record or history (no matter what it’s for or under what circumstances it came about) makes you a pariah and a social outcast who should never be integrated again. It quickly became very clear to me why so many people who have been in jail once ultimately go back – because jail has become the only “society” that will accept them and permit them back into it.

My life has dramatically improved since all this happened. I will shortly be graduating law school (and yes, I am slightly concerned about the character and fitness portion of the bar, but has received assurances that as long as I’m honest and open about the circumstances, I shouldn’t be denied admission). I have a fantastic boyfriend who knows all about it and still supports me. And my family stands behind me. Despite all of this, I still know damn well that many people believe that I should not be permitted to have this kind of great life, because I am a criminal. The implicit assurances that people can be convicted of a crime, be given a sentence, serve it fully, and come back out and resume their lives (within reasonable limits) doesn’t mean much anymore.

I know this raises really complex and icky issues about whether society owes former inmates and people with criminal histories a new start. Obviously, the kind of crime committed is a consideration here (like permitting violent sex offenders to simply move among the population again) or those whose crimes are considered abhorrent (like those convicted of rape). However, there is also a need to re-integrate former prisoners – if for nothing else, then to minimize the risk that they re-offend. And because that is the implicit promise of the criminal justice system – serve your time, do what we ask of you, and you will be free to go home and start over.

So, I said in the beginning that I wrote this little missive in response to the controversy around Michael Vick. Why? Because in a weird way, I understand the arguments being made about him. This isn’t a post about whether you believe the sentence he served to be sufficient to what he did (that’s a whole other topic, for another day). But I do understand the arguments about whether it is “proper” for Vick to get another chance at football or another chance to earn millions of dollars. The fact of the matter is, somebody you know has been to jail (whether they choose to disclose it to you or not). The fact also remains that jail is a punishment reserved for certain segments of society and not others (there are very few older, white, high-income people in jail right now). So taking these facts together, it becomes apparent that the way we treat former inmates says a lot about how we treat a large segment of society. I got very lucky with my experience. I intend to never return to the criminal justice system (at least on that side).

So at the end of the day, what do I want to leave you, dear reader, with? Do I want you to feel bad for Michael Vick, or myself, or any of the other former inmates out there? Hardly (sympathy does very little in a situation like this – and frankly, I doubt Michael Vick needs any). I do want you to remember that whether you know it or not, you probably know at least one person who has been on the inside and is labeled as criminal—and how you choose to treat them matters. A lot more than you think it does.

19 Responses to “Somebody You Know Is A Criminal (and why their rights matter): A Guest Post by Drahill”

Drahill – wow, this is fantastic, thank you for providing an honest and considered post about law and order issues.

I wish, more broadly in the MSM, there was a more considered debate about “laura norder”, especially about the role and function of the justice system and what happens to inmates who are serving and have served their time.

There is an election coming up soon (in about 3 months) where I live, and I can already imagine how these issues will be played out in the media.

It would be refreshing, especially in political circles, for public representatives to be honest about whether gaol (and similar institutions) is for rehabilitation or restriction, or both.

Drahill, this must have been hard to write, and I thank you for doing so.

Everyone’s rights matter, because we all have a stake in seeing that rights are honored for all.

As far as I’m concerned, there aren’t nearly enough old rich white men in jail, Just read the headlines and plenty of candidates’ names will pop right up.

It’s not so much that society owes people who have served time a fresh start, as it is that society has no other viable choice. You break the law, you get busted, you do your bit-that’s the end, or should be. Sure, caution is wise with some kinds of criminals, but not helping people out of prison get their lives together is destructive of society as a whole as well as of the individual involved. It’s a very short-sighted reaction.

MM, your right on the fact that society has no real alternative but to re-integrate after people emerge from prisons. I was sort of tinkering with the idea that “society” is so fragmented tho that reintegration at every level can be nearly impossible to achieve. I am super lucky in that my family loves me and took me back in – but i still sometimes worry that employers will refuse to hire me if the job calls for a background check.

I have kept in touch with a few people who were “inside” with me, and their lives have been fragmented as well. One was allowed to resume her job but was kicked out of her college. Others have become social pariahs, moved, changed their names. Reintegration is absolutely the only viable goal that society has, and I know sometimes laws are used to help accomplish that goal – those laws are laudable. My major concern is whether personal and societal attitudes could ever be changed enough to really permit real reintegration. And my hope is that individual people can start with themselves, because the law doesn’t solve the majority of these ills.

This is an interesting bookend to the Wikileaks post from a few days ago. Ultimately you’re appealing to citizens’ good faith, hoping that they will suck it up and assist in reintegrating individuals they might see as statistically dangerous. But similar to how some commenters in the previous post pondered why they should require the same burden of proof as the state to suspect someone’s guilt, I bet some here wonder why they should give a convicted violent criminal-now-ex-con the same benefit of the doubt upon release that the state allegedly does. This is either because they reject the state as a just or competent authority, or because the benefit of collective action is not worth the risk of harm resulting from close contact with an ex-convict.

BearDown: Well first, I think its interesting that you immediately made the distinction of Violent Offenders. This really, in part, makes i think my first point. I assume everybody who would read this is aware that the majority of “ex-cons” (a word I have my own beef with) are non-violent offenders. The problem here lies in the fact that the vast majority of society does not seek to elaborate on criminal histories when they learn about one’s criminal status. The conversation generally never progresses beyond discovering why one was in prison. Our current system makes little to no distinction in how it treats the non-violent and violent offenders.

Being a “violent offender” myself, let me address the next points you made. that some parts of society may be loathe to accept re-integration if they do not believe the prison system remedied the root causes of the offense. Here, I do think you mischaracterized what society is being asked to do as “sucking it up.” The thing is, prisons or jails do not create offenders. Crime is intimately linked factors that exist outside of prison and in society as a whole. Of course, person choice and decisions play a large role, but they are not happening in a vaccum. Society creates environments that make crime and offenders more likely, offenders go to prison for punishment/rehab/whatever you like to call it, offender gets released, and society claims that prison failed to remedy the issues that society helped to perpetuate in the first place and is probably continuing to perpetuate. I do believe that rehabilitation of any ex-offender does not stop in the prison context. I also tend to believe that society as whole has abdicated responsibility for fixing offenders onto the prison system – why? cause it’s easier to do then conduct serious self-examination and craft policies that promote re-integration. It’s NIMBY at it’s finest.

Your second point is a good one: that some people don’t believe the current system or state is an effective or just authority. There is so much truth to that, because it’s pretty clear now that the state doesn’t administer treatment, punishment, whathave you in any consistent or logical manner (indeed, two people with the same offense can receive disparate punishments). My only quibble with this argument is whether having doubts about the state’s ability to punish or rehabilitate justifies refusal to re-integrate offenders. I guess my idea would be that nothing is gained from a refusal to re-integrate in this case because the real beef is with the system or state and not with the people who passed through the system.

I apologize for this long response, but you raised several points and I really felt each deserved a response.

I enjoyed this post. I will thoroughly admit to being completely simplistic about this. I honestly believe that if society doesn’t believe that prison allows for the possibly of redemption then there is no point in prison.

As far as I am concerned if people serve their time then they have every right to do what ever they so wish afterwards. I appreciate that many people will find this naive, and that’s fine but honestly I fail to see the point of jail sentences if when people are released we just say that they have no rights to go about rehabilitating their lives and I hold to that in all cases from the writer of this post to yes, Michael Vick.

Then again I abhor the death penalty which I consider barbaric state sponsored murder so I guess my views are probably pretty wishy washy where many are concerned.

Meant to add – I have also worked with young offenders in the UK on volunteer programmes because this is something I feel very strongly about. If we just allow people to sink after prison then we deny the very concept of society and say that the world is just everybody for themselves, which frankly depresses me.

Right, well, it all comes down to our hypocrisy. We say we see prison as a chance for rehabilitation. But we treat it as punishment. I think either or both motives are reasonable depending on the case. But we should be upfront with ourselves.

Reintegration is something society owes to ex cons who have done their time.

The punishments should fit their respective crimes. The just punishment for attacking someone in a bar under extenuating circumstances shouldn’t be 60 days in jail and lifelong social pariah status. If you do your 60 days and you create a serious track record of law-abiding behavior, society owes you another chance.

Criminal records for relatively minor crimes should be wiped clean after five years unless the person re-offends.

What better incentive to pursue a life of crime than the realization that you can never get a straight job because you have a criminal record?

What better incentive to reform than the promise that the slate will be wiped clean when you prove that you function as a law-abiding citizen?

“If you do your 60 days and you create a serious track record of law-abiding behavior, society owes you another chance.”

The disconnect in my opinion is this: many, many people will agree that you should get another chance to be a member of society and far fewer people will agree that you should get chances to be their friend, for example. Personally, I’d be a little wary of going to a party with someone who had sent a stranger to the hospital at a party — I’m an outspoken person and I’ve also never been punched in the face and I’d like for both of those to continue to be true.

I mean, I believe that if we have a prison system, it should be geared towards rehabilitation. But I also know for a fact that a large number of prisoners do not have experiences that are rehabilitative and so treating someone who went to prison for a violent offense as if they have de facto been rehabilitated upon leaving prison seems, honestly, a little obtuse. I do think that criminal histories are a vital part of the conversation. That said, as a for instance, I would have a very, very, very difficult time being in a friendly social situation with someone who had gone to prison for rape, for instance, although the actual guilty verdict is more important to my judgment there than the prison sentence. My question for you is this: some people are dangerous and it’s important for everyone to be able to police their social groups to minimize their exposure to dangerous people. I think that many, perhaps most, people have badly-crafted algorithms for doing this and I think that simply including “was ever in prison” as a deciding factor is neither just nor in fact very functional. However, it is certainly the case that there are some people who commit violent crimes and go to prison for them and are still dangerous, and in some sense you can never actually know for certain if someone *will* be violent towards you until they *are* violent towards you. So, given all of this — how do you suggest that people balance the need for rehabilitation and reintegration with the desire to not be around people who might act violently towards one? Here I’m talking basically about purely social interactions and not institutional ones (e.g. jobs or colleges — I believe people have a right to education or the ability to earn a living wage in a way that they don’t have a right to, for example, friends).

I believe that most criminals become so because they are somehow victims of life and/or society and have chosen, for whatever reason including an inability to recognize choice in the matter, in an instance (or several) to react poorly to those circumstances. I believe in rehabilitation and I am sympathetic to genuine regret. I believe that a criminal record in no way makes a person less deserving of an equal place in society among all of us.

That said: I consider what Michael Vick did to be abhorrent. I will fully admit that I don’t know anything about him personally, but I know he didn’t do it because he needed a way to make money. He knew exactly what he was doing and who he was victimizing and he wasn’t blind to his choices. He in no way did it because he’s part of an at-risk sector of society that is victimized or oppressed. (He may have been when he was younger, but I’m sorry, millionaire football players don’t get powerless minority status or it’s accompanying consideration.) He did it because he considers the feelings of animals to be insignificant. He thought it was fun to watch easily manipulable yet fully sentient beings that we as a species have bred to trust and rely upon us rip each other apart. He tortured innocent dogs and I believe that he deserves to be shut out of opportunities due to the severity of his crimes. Maybe he does have some psychological problem caused by some abuse I don’t know about, but we don’t excuse pedophiles for that reason.

I know you didn’t write this entry to discuss the ins and outs of Vick’s crimes and their implications. However, I don’t think you should be drawing him into your cohort just because you’ve both been convicted of violent crimes. You deserve a true second chance and he is a monster.

ARachel: i’m sorry for writing this, because your not gonna like it, but, to be frank, everything I was trying to articulate, you just kinda proved it.

You clearly believe that Vick is a monster. That is totally fine to believe – I am not here to convine anyone otherwise or what have you. However, see, here’s the rub: there are people who believe I am a monster. I beat a girl to a bloody fucking pulp (and yes, my language is deliberately harsh). There are people who believe that I should not ever again enjoy a high quality of life because of what I did. Clearly, you believe that about Vick.

But see, here’s the thing: your making a value-laden judgment. You consider the crime of animal cruelty to be especially abhorent (and that is a fine view to have). However, you just used your own personal judgment and feelings to make blanket determinations about and distinctions of cases. And that’s what I’m trying to remove from the equation. What I’m talking about is re-integration and what (if any) duties society owes to former inmates when they emerge (and almost all do, at some point). The fact that Vick’s crime is one that holds a special distaste in popular culture does not create a de facto permission to violate his rights upon his release. Obviously, many come out with right restrictions (like Vick’s bar from owning any pets). Those things are reasonable. But I do believe that all ex-cons (and yes, Michael Vick among them) do have a right to reasonable re-integration. The issue of whether the NFL was prudent in re-signing Vick is a whole separate issue.

And as for your last point, I do, to some extent, have to believe that Vick is my “cohort” as you put it. A lot of very unsavory and dislikable people are my “cohorts” because we share a common experience of incarceration. That doesn’t mean I like them all, or would even want to be in a room with them.

Drahill, I feel like you kind of glossed over my first paragraph and concentrated on the fact that I am disgusted by Vick. I’m not at all disagreeing with the idea that it is imperative to re-integrate those who have broken the law and served their time. In fact, I’m one of those rare people who believe that MOST crimes are committed by people who are also victims themselves and that the root causes of their crimes need treatment as much as the criminal deserves punishment.

My whole point was that most people who are convicted of crimes are deserving of complete re-integration to society without persecution (you are one of those people.) But, due to the nature of his crimes, Vick is not. Vick is an outlier and that is where my dissention lay.

It is obvious that there were buckets of extenuating circumstances surrounding your crime that were even recognized by the courts (You were mentally ill at the time) and Vick was consciously cruel.

I deliberately used your word ‘abhorrent’ to describe Michael Vick’s crimes to indicate that I believe that he should be categorized with the group of criminals you yourself described as those due special consideration when integrated back into society (child abusers and rapists). I’m assuming that murderers would also go into this category, in your view.

My point is that Vick’s crime is not merely one that “holds a special distaste in popular culture.” It is unusually serious and horrific. There is an incredibly large body of evidence that suggests that those who purposefully commit cruel and violent acts toward animals are also inclined to commit crimes such as rape, child and spousal abuse, and murder. They tend to be lifelong abusers and continual threats to society. Animal abuse is one of those things that pops up in almost every serial killer’s history. Here, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/magazine/13dogfighting-t.html?pagewanted=all

I’m not saying that now that he’s free, Michael Vick shouldn’t be allowed to exercise his rights as a citizen of the United States. I’m saying that society would be right to recognize the gravity of his actions following his release. The NFL would be right not to throw him back up on a pedestal. He deserves to be granted employment, but the uncertainty arises because he wants to rejoin the NFL and football players are some of the most heavily rewarded and publicly celebrated individuals in our society. The last time he was in the NFL, Vick used his football money to finance a giant dog-fighting enterprise. This fact demands consideration.

I agree that people convicted of crimes need to be given jobs and a chance to participate in society at the same level as everybody else and that preventing them from doing so only leads to more crime and the erosion of society in general. Not to mention, it is morally wrong to deny those who have endured their punishment a second chance at peaceful functionality in society.

However, you have to recognize the fact that there are levels here and that somebody who has a violent break because her meds aren’t working shouldn’t be subject to the same scrutiny as somebody who is free of clinical defect and found guilty of committing habitual torture. Had you not been immediately arrested, I sense that you would have emerged from your episode and recognized the fact that it was wrong to pummel that girl. Michael Vick operated a multi-state animal cruelty ring and only stopped because he got caught.

@ARachel: But I think what drahill is trying to do is have us think of the post-penal rehabilitative process like a socialized insurance pool. The “premium” for each citizen is a)and increased exposure to perhaps violent or larcenous individuals and b) the provision of civility, under the premise that the penal system has doled out due punishment, that is not in line with individual citizens’ sense of justice. The “payoff” to society (i.e. the collective of citizens) is that the re-offending will be less frequent because ex-offenders shall be better re-integrated, which is therapeutic.

baraquiel rejects the system based on (a), either because she finds the personal safety aspect of the premium too high or because she thinks the payoff is chimerical. You seem to reject it based on (b) by highlighting the immorality of providing the same opportunities to Vick as anyone else who’d served that amount of jailtime. I think her response would be, in the context of this model, that the collective action solution to reintegration therapy falls apart once individual citizens reserve the right to opt out of deferring to the state as the punishing authority. In other words, treat somebody who got out not having done a “just” amount of time, in your eyes, as well as you would somebody who did. She also makes the point that if you think the current punishment for a particular crime is unsuitable, change the sentence systematically (by acting within “society”), but don’t attempt to do it one-on-one after the convict has been released (by acting merely as an individual).

And drahill, that is what I was saying by “suck it up”. Individuals’ personal preferences are hardly ever an exact match with the general will.

@BearDownCBears – I don’t believe the payoff is chimerical at all but I do think that the premium is too high *if* there is only one “pool” as you put it. If there was a good system for creating different re-integration “pools” based on the risk an individual poses to society of further violence, I would be much more on-board. The way we do this now seems to be essentially based on race and class which of course is neither efficient nor just. I’m just saying that I don’t think it’s unreasonable for reintegration to be easier and more straightforward for someone who spent 15 months in jail for weed than for someone who spent 15 years in jail for aggravated assault, for example.

ARachel: Firstly, I did read your posts in full and am trying to respond to one major issue: you are essentially making an argument that the nature of the crime affects the right to re-integration.

You obviously believe that animal cruelty is an especially abhorrent crime. As I said before, you are free to believe that. Everyone maintains an internal level of what crimes they judge to be worse than others (is rape worse than homicide? Is large scale economic crimes worse than single victim violent ones? those are personal judgements).

You say Vick is an outlier: that again is a personal judgment you choose to make. And like I have said, there are people who regard mentally ill offenders as particularly dangerous above all others (and just for reference, I’m still as mentally ill today as I was then – I just have more effective treatment). So if that view is equally as valid as your own, then I am an outlier who is not really deserving of re-integration.

You also talk about your distaste for the way Vick has been placed on a pedastal by the NFL – and I’m inclined to agree that the chance for teachable moments and real discusses about animal cruelty have been lost. But that’s not a re-integration argument. My whole point is that re-integration is a right all ex-cons have a right to to, subject to reasonable limitations (like Vick’s bar on pet ownership). That makes sense. I have an active no-contact order with my victim. That’s totally acceptable, I get why that’s there. But you keep using factual instances of Vick’s case to sort of make the argument that he isn’t subject to re-integration. And that’s where he disagree: of course he is! All us ex-cons are, because it’s the only viable option to reduce recidivism.

Your arguments are all valid – but their social, ethical and psychological arguments – not ones having anything to really do with re-integration or prison reform. This is part of the reason why prison reform and advocacy is so damn hard and so few people are into it: because it requires forming empathy for people who in many cases are repugnant. You have to separate other serious concerns about prisoners and offender behavior from the rights all people are entitled to. Prisoner and ex-prisoner rights are human rights – and those apply regardless of the human your talking about.

Drahill – you, with the attendant discussion of other harpies, illustrate how difficult it can be to reconcile the social, political, and individual ideas/morals/ethics about people who have been sanctioned through criminal justice processes, the role of the gaol, and post-imprisonment integration into society.

At the moment my head is playing Socratic philosopher, trying to take in the discussion. But it still seems to come back to, if someone is sanctioned by society and have completed the sanction, then they should be allowed to participate once again in society.